Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389- Appellate Court is unambiguously vested with the power to suspend implementation of the sentence or the order of conviction under appeal and grant bail to the incarcerated convict, for which it is imperative to assign the reasons in writing – in order to suspend the conviction of an individual, the primary factors that are to be looked into, would be the peculiar facts and circumstances of that specific case, where the failure to stay such a conviction would lead to injustice or irreversible consequences. The very notion of irreversible consequences is centered on factors, including the individual’s criminal antecedents, the gravity of the offence, and its wider social impact, while simultaneously considering the facts and circumstances of the case – an order granting a stay of conviction should not be the rule but an exception and should be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the facts of a case. However, where conviction, if allowed to operate would lead to irreparable damage and where the convict cannot be compensated in any monetary terms or otherwise, if he is acquitted later on, that by itself carves out an exceptional situation.- Referred to Ravikant Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali (2007) 1 SCC 673, para 15. (Para 10-15)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389-Whether conviction of an offence involving ‘moral turpitude’ can be a valid ground to deny suspension of conviction under Section 389(1) of the CrPC? Although ‘moral turpitude’ may carry relevance within the context of elected representatives, the courts are bound to construe the law in its extant state and confine their deliberations to those facets explicitly outlined, rather than delving into considerations pertaining to the moral rectitude or ethical character of actions. This is especially true when it is solely motivated by the convicted individual’s status as a political representative, with the aim of disqualification pursuant to the RPA. (Para 20)